Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of electronic traceability systems

(1)

Report 15/2009y Published March 2009

Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of electronic traceability systems

Workshop hosted by Nofima in association with the TRACE project 25-26 February 2009

Kathryn Anne-Marie Donnelly and Petter Olsen

(2)

Nofima is a business-oriented research group that aims at creating value of knowledge in close cooperation with the aquaculture-, fisheries- and food industry. The group has four research divisions: Marine, Food, Ingredients and Market, around 470 employees altogether. Our headquarters are located in Tromsø. Other research units are at Ås, Stavanger, Bergen,

Sunndalsøra and Averøy.

Main office in Tromsø Muninbakken 9–13 P.O. box 6122 NO-9291 Tromsø Norway

Tel.: +47 77 62 90 00 Fax: +47 77 62 91 00 E-mail: nofima@nofima.no Internet: www.nofima.no

Nofima’s social scientific business area offers economic analysis, perspective and foresight analysis, consumer research, market analysis and strategic consultancy. Other primary professional areas cover information logistics and traceability. In addition to servicing the industry, Nofima Market works closely with Nofima’s scientific areas of business.

Nofima Market Muninbakken 9–13 P.O. box 6122 NO-9291 Tromsø Norway

Tel.: +47 77 62 90 00 Fax: +47 77 62 91 00 E-mail: market@nofima.no

Internet: www.nofima.no

(3)

Nofima Market

P.O. box 6122, NO-9291 Tromsø, Norway Visiting address: Muninbakken 9–13 Tel.: +47 77 62 90 00, fax: +47 77 62 91 00 market@nofima.no

www.nofima.no

Business reg. no.: NO 964 441 898 VAT

Report

^ISBN:978-82-7251-679-5

Report no:

15/2009

Accessibility:

Open

Date:

March 18, 2009

Title:

Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and cost/benefit calculations related to

implementation of electronic traceability systems Number of pages and appendixes:

Author(s):

Kathryn Anne-Marie Donnelly and Petter Olsen

Project no.:

20074

By agreement with:

EU Project TRACE

Contractors ref.:

Three keywords:

Process mapping, traceability, cost-benefit

Summary:

In recent years there has been increased focus on traceability in food supply chains. Process mapping for traceability in food supply chains is a way of describing where information which is necessary to maintain traceability is lost. There exist many ‘methods’ for this, but few (if any) of them are formalised as scientific publications. Cost benefit calculations are important in all areas of research and management. With respect to implementing traceability, an appropriate cost benefit analysis will be an important tool. A better understanding of the different methods would enable advancement of this area of research.

(4)

(5)

1 Introduction

In recent years there has been increased focus on traceability in food supply chains (Carriquiry and Babcock, 2007, Caswell, 2000, Elbers et al., 2001, Fallon, 2001, Hobbs, 2004, Madec et al., 2001, Ozawa et al., 2001, Sporleder and Goldsmith, 2001). Sporleder and Moss (2002) described the increasing demand for vertical product information flow in the global food supply chain. This increased interest has led to the establishment of large national and international research projects. The projects are focused on both the analytical tools necessary to verify the origin of food products and the technical tools and knowledge necessary to trace product and process information throughout the supply chain. The larger European projects include, TRACE, TRACEBACK, TraceFish, ChillOn, CoExtra.

Process mapping for traceability in food supply chains is a way of describing where information which is necessary to maintain traceability is lost. There exist many ‘methods’ for this, but few (if any) of them are formalised as scientific publications. This makes further development and exchange of ideas challenging. Comparison of results is also difficult when there are no formal descriptions of the methods. A better understanding of the different methods would enable advancement of this area of research.

Cost benefit calculations are important in all areas of research and management. They can be used as a tool to decide whether a course of action is appropriate, how best to develop an existing solution further and to assess the outcome of a completed project. With respect to implementing traceability, an appropriate cost benefit analysis will be an important tool.

An outcome of the above mentioned projects has been further development of these methods. The aim of the workshop was to discuss and share experiences from working with methods related to food traceability process mapping and also with cost benefit calculations in order to see what could be learned and what experiences could be exchanged.

The authors hope that the workshop and this document will form the basis for a further exchange of ideas. The experience gained from this workshop is particularly valuable because of the international and intra-project exchanges and contributions.

1

(8)

(9)

2 Contributions

3

(10)

(11)

Food Traceability Process Mapping. Standard method for analyzing material flow, information flow and information loss in food supply chains.

Petter Olsen, Nofima

5

(12)

(13)

Petter Olsen 25/02/09 - ©Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged

Intra-project meeting Tromsø, Norway, February 25-26 2009

Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of electronic traceability systems

Senior scientist Petter Olsen, Nofima Marked

Nofimais the newly formed fusion of almost all Norwegian food research institutes (incorporating Akvaforsk, Matforsk, Norconserv and Fiskeriforskning) and covers all food sectors and links in the value chain.

Nofima Marketis situated in Tromsoe and carries out R&D work related to economics, marketing, logistics, rationalisation and traceability of food products.

This presentation

1. What is traceability, definitions 2. Why traceability?

3. Process mapping method – background

4. Process mapping method – application

5. Process mapping method – conclusions

Definition - ISO 8402

Traceability:

Ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications.

In a product sense, it may relate to Îthe origin of materials and parts Îthe product processing history Îthe distribution and location of the

product after delivery

ISO 9000:

“The ability to trace the history, application or location of that which is under consideration”

EU Common Food Law:

“The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food- producing animal or substance intended to be, or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing and distribution”

Codex Alimentarius:

“Traceability/product tracing: the ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution”

What traceability is and isn’t:

•Traceability does not refer to the (product) data itself

•There is no such thing as “traceability data”

•Traceability does not mean “ability to identify origin”; that is only part of traceability

•Traceability is the name of your systematic ability to access the data you have stored

•Traceable data elements are connected to identifiers, and traceable data elements are connected to each other

7

(14)

Chain traceability visualization:

This is the traceability

‘The ability to trace …’

Information (systematic recordings)

Food safety

Trace contamination,

Enable recall

Legislation

Common Food Law

§18, §19 Labeling

laws Competitive

advantage

Integration of systems

Labour/cost reduction

Avoid re- punching Optimal production

Industrial statistics

Traceability drivers in the food sector:

Trace- ability

Certification (BRC, IFS, ISO 22000, ..) Traceability

requirements

HACCP

Chain communi-

cation

Profiling Feedback-

loops Make or buy

Petter Olsen 25/02/09 - © Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged

Documentation of sustainability

Non-IUU fish

Environmental load, food miles,

emissions, resource use

Consumer preference

TRACE (IP)

“To develop traceability methods and systems that will provide consumers with added confidence in the authenticity of European food.”

•18. 6 M€

•60 months

•53 participants (11 SME’s)

•4 traceability pilots (mineral water, honey, chicken, feed/grain)

European Commission -DG Research

Traceability systems Analytical Tools Consumers Technology Transfer

TIMCS

Fork Farm

+

Traceable data capable of verifying the origin of food Demonstration

First company/

chain visit

Detailed view of TRACE activities per chain

Kick-off meeting for this specific chain

Plan re- engineering

Consensus meeting

Effectuate re- engineering

Final company/

chain visit

Evaluate cost/

benefit and conclude Drafting

of ad-hoc standard

Draft ad- hoc standard

Initial analysis of material and information flow

Final plan for re- engineering Draft plan for

re-

engineering Final report

with ‘Good Traceability Practice’ and cost/benefit analysis Final analysis of material and information flow Final ad-hoc

standard Mapping verifiable parameters to objective methods

Dictionary of verifiable parameters to

objective methods

Process mapping method needed

Cost/benefit method needed

Batches, TUs and LUs

Pro duct

ion

Raw material batch 151 Raw material

batch 156

Ingredient batch 915 Ingredient batch 838

Production batch 211

Production batch 212

Internal

Trade units 19768 Trade units 19432 Trade units 19001 Trade units 18851 Trade units 18771 Trade units 16518 Trade units 16515 Trade units 15510

Received

LU

Trade units 29702 Trade units 28866 Trade units 27654 Trade units 25009 Trade units 23174 Trade units 22651 Trade units 22199 Trade units 21551

Sent

LU

Process Pre

pro cess

Post pro cess

Trans port

Timeline

Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration

T T T T

Transformation

Process mapping method - background

(15)

9 sets of questions – go against the flow (or not)

Sample form 1 – Transport (D)

Sample form 4 – Production ends (T)

Question types

• Material flow (M), product or ingredient name, type, condition, location, collection

frequency, etc

• Parameters including media used (P), linked to TU/LU or on label, media used,

• Existing or possible keys (K), identification of TU, LU, shipment, vehicle, trip, etc.

• Transformations (T), link between input and output, between TU and LU, joins, splits

• Food safety (F), questions about temperature and temperature logs

Questions related to durations

•What is the nature of the duration? How is the vehicle / trip / tank / store identified?

•What is the nature of the product in this duration? The name? The type? The size?

•What is on the product label in this duration?

•Who is responsible for the product?

•How are products separated in this duration?

•What common parameters are linked to all products in this duration?

•What quality control checks in this duration?

Questions related to transformations

• Why and where did the transformation happen?

• What is the frequency of this, what amounts are involved?

• How do inputs relate to outputs? (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-many)

• What is the relationship between LU and TU?

• How are parameters that describe inputs connected to parameters that describe outputs?

9

(16)

History of the method

•First version developed in 2004 as part of Seafood Plus IP

•Now in version 9

•Submitted for scientific publication

•Used by various people in various projects

•Has been used for process mapping in supply chains for chicken, cod, herring, honey, lamb, mineral water, salmon, soy bean and tuna (and probably more)

Experience using the method

• A process mapping done using this method is in itself not sufficient for subsequent implementation of traceability software

• The focus is on the identifiers and the transformations, not the parameters connected to the identifiers, so additional questions are needed if you want to investigate something related to the value of the parameters (hygiene, recall readiness, sustainability, resource use, etc.)

• It is a good tool for first company visit, it ensures that relevant questions are not forgotten, and it significantly helps in standardizing reporting from pilots

Thank you for your attention

Petter Olsen petter.olsen@nofima.no

Process mapping publications

• Dupuy, C., Botta-Genoulaz, V. & Guinet, A. (2002). Traceability analysis and optimization method in food industry. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2002 IEEE International Conference on, 1), 494-499.

• Dupuy, C., Botta-Genoulaz, V. & Guinet, A. (2005). Batch dispersion model to optimise traceability in food industry. Journal of Food Engineering, 70(3), 333-339.

• Folinas, D., Manikas, I. & Manos, B. (2006). Traceability data management for food chains. British Food Journal, 108(8), 622-633.

• Lo Bello, L., Mirabella, O., Torrisi, N. & ieee computer, s. "Modelling and evaluating traceability systems in food manufacturing chains." 13th IEEE International Workshop on Enabling Technologies - Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WET ICE 2004), Modena, ITALY.

Cost/benefit publications

• Banterle, A. & Stranieri, S. (2008). The consequences of voluntary traceability system for supply chain relationships. An application of transaction cost economics. Food Policy, 33(6), 560-569.

• Caswell, J.A. (2007). Expanding the focus of cost-benefit analysis for food safety: a multi-factorial risk prioritization approach. Workshop on Monitoring and Quality Assurance in the Food Supply Chain, Bonn, Germany.

• Caswell, J.A. & Jensen, H.H. (2007). Introduction: Economic measures of food safety interventions. Agribusiness, 23(2), 153-156.

• Cooper, R. & Kaplan, R.S. (1988). Measure costs right - make the right descisions.

Harvard Business Review, 66(5), 96-103.

• Gordijn, J. & Akkermans, H. (2001). Designing and evaluating E-business models. Ieee Intelligent Systems, 16(4), 11-17.

• Maldonado, E.S., Henson, S.J., Caswell, J.A., Leos, L.A., Martinez, P.A., Aranda, G. &

Cadena, J.A. (2005). Cost-benefit analysis of HACCP implementation in the Mexican meat industry. Food Control, 16(4), 375-381.

• Sahin, E., Dallery, Y. & Gershwin, S. (2002). Performance evaluation of a traceability system. Proceedings of International Symposium and Workshop on System Engineering of Computer Based System. IEEE transactions), 229-232.

• Siman, E.M., Hernandez, P.A.M., Henson, S.J., Caswell, J.A., Meneses, J.A.C. & Bueno, F.C. (2005). Costs and benefits associated to the implementation of food safety and quality controls: HACCP and ISO 9000 in the Mexican slaughterhouses. Revista Cientifica-Facultad De Ciencias Veterinarias, 15(4), 353-360.

(17)

Analysis of Food Processes: an Application for Traceability using

’Tracepoints’

Jorge Molina, Ainia

11

(18)

(19)

Título verdana 24 negrita“Traceability Methods Workshop:

ainia

Process Mapping and Cost-Benefit Analysis”

Jorge Molina

Food Safety, Quality and Environment Research Projects ainia – Technological Center

NOFIMA – Tromso-Norway 25-26 February 2009

ainia

2 - Tracepoints in Traceability Methods 3 - Traceability Methods Comparative 1 - Traceability Methods

“Traceability Methods Workshop”

Outline of the Presentation

ainia: about us Thanks to…

Thanks to Mr. Petter Olsen….

Thanks to NOFIMA…

Thanks to the support of EU projects…

Pleasure to share this workshop…

Jorge Molina Food Engineer

ainia – Valencia SPAIN Thanks to…

ainia: about us

Our mission is to actively participate in the attainment of excellencein companies through innovation, anticipating the requirements of society and establishing ourselves as an organization of professionals recognized as a qualified and committed collaborator

Multi-disciplinary teams

Food technicians, agronomists, chemists, physicists, industrial engineers, doctors in telecommunications, lawyers, psychologists, sociologists, economists, journalists, marketing experts, biologists, etc.

Continuous training

Our professionals are trained in the technologies that are most important for us, in the principal centers and universities in the world.

190 professionals on the staff

70 % doctors and university graduates 30 % trained technicians

Part 1: Traceability Methods

objective

The presentation is focused to the analysis and performance of some process mapping techniques oriented to traceability analysis and requirements definition for services implementation.

13

(20)

Scope of the Presentation

Food Chain/Business/Process

Activities Data Model Information Flows /Events…

Food Chain/Business/Process Models-Procedures

Capture Software Implementation

Several Spanish Research Projects, EU Research Project.

Some elements applied in TRACEBACK Food Chain and Food Players Internal Processes 2003. ainia

Technological Center, J.

Molina & team. In collaboration with Food SME´s. Technological and Non-Technological Approach Food Chain &

Traceability Systems Analysis Methodology

“Avante Method”

EU Research Project.

Food-Reg / TRACEBACK…

Food Players Internal Processes mainly Several EU

Research Projects.

VI FP Description of Traceability Activities Tracepoints

Analysis of Traceability Systems Supply Chain Operations Reference Model Description

Food processes.

Legislation and Food Standards compliance Supply Chain Processes, high level approach. Do not Implementation level

Scope

Fundación Chile Fundación Chile

Trazabilidad and others

“B.T.P”

2006

www.supply-chain.org 1996. Independent

Non-Profit Global Corporation.

“SCOR”

References Origin

Some Methods Overview

“Avante”

Introduction

“Avante” is a Food Chain and Process Mapping Traceability Methodology (Including Food Safety and Quality approach) Started in 2003 in research spanish projects. Applied in TRACEBACK project later

Applied to: Research and Innovation Projects, EU projects and in Consultancy Projects

Tested in meat sector (processed), wine sector, vegetables sector, DDGS (Dry Distilled Grains /Feed as a by-product for feed sector obtained from Bio-ethanol industry), grain sector (rice), honey sector, dairy sector and spirits,

Firstly based on ainia´s experience in food applied projects Method oriented to food chain analysis and traceability objectives

“Avante”

“Avante” maps the current situation of the food chain and/or food player traceability (INPUTS) using some traceability indicators and the method processes the information for producing an (OUTPUT) final report and graphical representation for an added value traceability solution

INPUTS Questionnaires,

interviews.…

for process mapping

OUTPUTS Final Traceability Conceptual Model and Graphical

Solution

“AVANTE-Process Mapping: a Balance Between Method Inputs and Method Outputs”

“Avante” Scope: Food Items

Food Items Scope

Raw materials and Ingredients Food Product

Inorganic filtering materials (active carbon materials, diatomea materials…)

Technological Auxiliaries Semi-processed products Final Products

In direct contact with food content (packing, lid…) Packaging materials

Special sectors (spirit): barrels...

Semi-processed products with destination to feed industry

“Avante” Scope: Food Players

Processes Scope

Analysis of Contextual Scenarios Food Chain Configuration Level

Internal Processes Mapping (linking with external processes) Decomposition:

Food Players Level

-Regulatory, Non-regulatory requirements…

Analysis of Specific Supply Chain Configurations

Traceability Food Chain Requirements

-Flow Chart Steps - Food Item involved

- Logistic Unit Involved (Trace Unit) - Data for Trace Unit ID - Associated records - Data in associated records - Lot criteria creation

Food Players Traceability Requirements

(21)

Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project Example Process Mapping: flow chart example (INPUT)

Despalillado Estrujado

Prensado Envejecimiento en Barrica

Extracción vino prensa

Registro Control Lotes MPA Identificación

Logística Productos

Registros R e ce pció n Ma te ria le s a ux ilia re s

Registro Entrada Uva Recepción Uva

Fecha Inicio llenado Fecha fin llenado Variedad de Uva Origen: Parcelas

Llenado y Control Depósito

0

Producto Lote:

Unidades

Par 1Par 2

Recepción Uva

Par 3Par 4 DIA 1

DIA 2

Embotellado Bodega EtiquetadoFinal Expedición

Alimentación corchos

Corrección

Corrección Almacenamiento

Depósito Semielaborado

AlmacenamientoDepósito Coupage Almacenamiento depósito previo

Almacenamiento depósito previo --Vino Flor Maceración Previa

1

Maceración Previa2

Prensado VINO TINTO

vINO fLOR

---8.76cmX %

Registro Entrada Mostos/Vinos

Remontes

Vino

Alimentación botellas

Entrada M. P. Auxiliares Proveedor Fecha Recepción Lote Tamaño del lote

Mate ria s P . Aux ilia re s

Llenado y Control Depósito Llenado y Control Depósito

Control Correcciones Nº Barrica Fecha Llenado Contenido

Control Coupage Control Correcciones Control Correcciones

Producto Lote:

Unidades Rima

Registro Control Bodega Producto Lote:

Registro Control Embotellado

Registro Control Expedición Producto Lote:

Unidades Fecha Inicio

llenado Fecha fin llenado Variedad de Uva Origen: Depósitos

Fecha Inicio llenado Fecha fin llenado Variedad de Uva Origen: Depósitos

Fecha Inicio llenado Fecha fin llenado Variedad de Uva Origen: Depósitos Corrección C o upa ge

Corrección

De pó sito pre vio Envas a do

R e ce pció n Mate ria le s a ux ilia re s

Control Barricas Almacenamient o vino prens/2ª

Vino Trasiego Control

Campo

R e ce pció n Mate ria le s a ux ilia re s

Registro Etiquetado Registro Control Campo

Example Process Mapping: Traceability Conceptual Model (OUTPUT)

EXTRACCIÓN VINO PRENSA +Depósito CONTROL RECEPCION CONTROL DE TRAZABILIDAD

Código;Nº Albarán

Aplicable a 1)Unidad Homegenea de Cultivo o Partidas (AAAA/01) AAA/03 AAA.../06 2)Cisternas mostos /vinos (AAAA/02) 3)Materias Primas Auxiliares y Coadyuvantes Tecnológicos (BBBB/01) BBB/02

DEPÓSITO 001DEPÓSITO 002

LOTE:

001-116-05LOTE:

002-116-05 LOTE: Nº Depósito+DiajulianoInicio Llenado+Año

Registro Llenado Depósitos Depósito: 001 Dia Inicio Llenado:26/04/05 Lote Actual: 00111605 Dia Variedad Nº Albarán 26/4/05 Bobal AAAA/01 AAAA/03 27/4/05 Bobal AAAA/04 VOLUMEN TOTAL: 10.000 l

Depósito: 002 Lote Actual: 00211605 Nº Albarán AAA/06 Registro Llenado Depósitos

MACERACION PREVIA

DEPÓSITO 003

LOTE:

003-134-05 (001-116-05 + 002-116-05)

Registro Llenado Depósitos Depósito: 003 Dia Inicio Llenado:14/05/05 Lote Actual: 00313405 Variedad: Bobal Dia Orígen Litros 14/5/05 001-116-05 10000 002-116-05 10000

VOLUMEN TOTAL:...

ALMACENAMIENTO DEPOSITYO PREVIO VINO FLOR

DEPÓSITO 004

LOTE:

004-140-05 Orígen: 2 vinos flor de 2 depósitos distintos, llenados cada uno en distintos dias 20/5/05: 140 Registro Llenado Depósitos (V. Flor) Depósito: 004 Dia Inicio Llenado:20/05/05 Lote Actual: 00414005 Variedad: Bobal Dia Llemado Orígen Tipo Litros 20/5/05 00111605 .. 8.000 21/5/05 00211605 .. 8.000 VOLUMEN TOTAL:....

DEPÓSITO 005

LOTE:

005-145-05 Orígen: VINO FLOR + VINO PRENSA 25/5/05: 145 ELABORACION SEMIELABORADOS

Registro Llenado Depósitos (Semielaborado) Depósito: 005 Dia Inicio Llenado:25/05/05 Lote Actual: 00514505 Variedad: Bobal Dia Llemado Orígen Tipo Litros 25/5/05 00414005 Flor 8.000 00313405 Prensa 8000 AAA/02 Externo 8.000 VOLUMEN TOTAL:....

ENVEJECIMIENTO BARRICAS

DEPÓSITO 005

LOTE:

005-145-05

DEPÓSITO 006 LOTE:

006-145-05

123

456

Registro Llenado Barricas Dia Inicio Llenado:28/07/05 Variedad: Bobal,...

Lote Origen: 005 145 05 BARRICAS 1, 2, 3 VOLUMEN TOTAL:....

COUPAGE

DEPÓSITO 007

LOTE:

007-181-06 Orígen: Barricas 1-4 Dia Llenado: 30/6/06= 181

Registro Llenado Control Coupage Depósito: 007 Dia Inicio Llenado:30/06/06 Lote Actual: 00718106 Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005 Dia Llenado Variedad Lote Origen Litros 30/6/06 Bobal 00514505 Barricas 1,2,3 10.000 30/6/06 Monastrell 00614505 B. 4,5,6 10.000 30/6/06 Bobal00510006Depósito Semielaborado 2006

VOLUMEN TOTAL:....

LLENADO DEPÓSITO ENVASADO

DEPÓSITO 007

DEPÓSITO 008 ENVASADO LOTE:

008-186-06 Orígen: Depósito Coupage 07 Dia Llenado: 5/7/06= 186 Registro Control Depósito Envasado Depósito: 008 Dia Inicio Llenado:5/07/06 Lote Actual: 00818606 Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005 Orígen Lote Litros Depósito Coupage 007 00718106 30.000

EMBOTELLADO

DEPÓSITO 008

LOTE Origen:

008-186-06 Orígen: Depósito Envasado 08 Dia Embotellado: 5/7/06= 186 Rima

Dia Juliano+año+Nº linea+Nº Envasado 186-06-1-1 Registro Embotellado Dia Embotellado: 5/07/06 Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005 Lote : 186 06 1 1 Orígen Litros 008 186 06 10.000 Botella Lote Unidades BBB/01 13.330 Tapón Lote Unidades BBB/02 13.330

BODEGA Agrupación de Rimas e identificación de cada rima con su número de lote.

Control de la ubicación física de productos y lotes en almacén.

ETIQUETADO FINAL BOTELLA Etiquetado de 13.330 botellas

LOTE Etiquetado Botellas Final=Lote Rima=

Lote Embotellado L1860611

Registro Etiquetado Final Dia Etiquetado: 12/10/06 Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005 Nº Botellas: 13.330 Lote Embotellado: 186 06 1 1 Lote Origen Ubicación 186 06 1 1 Rima

RECEPCION (BBBB/01) BBB/02

EXPEDICION

Albarán Salida Nº: 2222 Dia Expedicion:

12/10/06 Tipo Vino:

Crianza 2005 Nº Botellas: 600 Nº Cajas:100 Cliente: 0000 Lote Embotellado:

186 06 1 1 LOTE RIMAS=

LOTE BOTELLAS

Registro Control Correcciones Depósito: 008 Lote: 008 186 06 Fecha: 5/7/05 Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005 Correccion Lote SO2 BBB/05

CAVA:

Registro Control Licor Expedicion Lote a Degollar: 186 06 1 1 Fecha: 12/10/06 Tipo Vino: Cava Lote Licor Expedicion:

CCC/01 Registro Preparacion Licor Expedicion Fecha: 12/10/06 Tipo Vino: Cava LOTE: CCC/01 Producto Lote Vino AAA/25 Albarán Entrada Registro Llenado

Depósitos (Semielaborado) Depósito: 005 Dia Inicio Llenado:10/04/06 Lote Actual: 005 100 06 Variedad: Bobal

.

2006 Registro Llenado Barricas Dia Inicio Llenado:28/07/05 Variedad: Bobal,...

Lote Origen: 006 145 05

Example Process Mapping: Traceability Conceptual Model Tracking and Tracing Models (OUTPUT):

Part 2: Tracepoints in Traceability Methods

Tracepoints as a Tool for Traceability Analysis

We can define Tracepoint as an action or event related to a process indicating a breakpoint in traceability, due to a change in the product

state or the associated info.

This is a very good option to model internal operations and in addition linking internal with external traceability, and one of the crucial pieces to construct an optimum traceability system.

Tracepoints have been benchmarked in TRACEBACK project trying to benchmark and identify new tracepoints for the specific tomato and feed-dairy chain as well as including a set of rules of information management for IT management systems applications.

Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project

Tracepoints break each production process into representative steps/actions:

TRACEPOINT. The path composed by the flow or combination of tracepoints will reflect the “traceability operations” needed to maintain traceability along internal processes and therefore in supply chain.

Tracepoint

Input data Output data

Action to do

Meaning Symbol

• Name of the corresponding action

• Symbol of the action

• Information relative tot he process practices

• Data inputs necessayr to traceability

• Data outputs necessary to traceability

• Importance of data

Tracepoints an overview

15

(22)

Tracepoints an overview

Tracepoint name

and symbol Meaning

Some Processes associated…

And examples of cases where the tracepoint is used Receive

The trace unit is introduced into a food player Reception

A food player is taking possession of the tomatoes/ dairy products Entry/ Flow in A trace unit is entered into a process

equipment or location in the food player/process.

Unloading

The tomatoes/dairy products are transferred into a recipient so as to be introduced into the process

Top up/fill

One or various receptacle(s) is (are) fulfilled with the trace unit content.

Filling the bottles

The tomato juice is used to be spread out into receptacles

Milk product is packed into the bottles or cups by filling machine.

New ID

New pieces of information about the trace unit internal or external identification (name, code, etc) are visibly attributed to the trace unit. 2 possibilities: or the trace unit has not been identified before and this is the first identification or the trace unit is already identified and this identification may replace the existing one .

Labelling

A code is given to the product, or a new label is placed on the product

Store/ Stock A trace unit is kept located in a specific location without being processed (sometimes in specific conditions) between two stages.

Storage

The tomatoes/milk products are warehoused into a cold room

Tracepoints as a Tool for Traceability Analysis

Split

A bigger trace unit is divided into various smaller trace units with identical characteristics (but not necessarily the same weight).

Depalletization

The different boxes of a pallet are separated

Modify (NEW )

The trace unit is affected by a modification which may change other parameters of food safety.

Washing and drying Sterilization Pasteurization

The tomato juice is sterilized but its ingredients and texture are not changed Milk is heat treated to improve hygienic quality

Repack(NEW )

A trace unit which is already packed is repacked into a new pack.

Palletization

A product which is already packed (for example a tomato juice bottle) is put into a second packaging (for example the bottles are put into a box)

Measure (NEW) +

The value of a parameter, or condition, of the trace unit, or of the process conditions, is measured (before or after a stage).

Weight the received tomatoes The received tomatoes ate put in a machine which evaluates their size Tracepoint name

and symbol Meaning

Some Processes associated…

And examples of cases where the tracepoint is used

Tracepoints description: example

Part 3: Traceability Methods Comparative

(23)

Deep Process Analysis, To be complemented with data proposed by standards

Assuring data Representativeness…

Each single tracepoints has a standard information set. Graphical representation

Conceptual Model: templates and Graphical representation How to analyze data

collected

2-3 EU projects. It facilitates communication with ICT developers…trying to be a common language. New approach in TRACEBACK High. Applied to both research and

consultancy projects. Several food sectors

Experience with method

It needs a tool for a quick translating of information into ICT systems It needs the incorporation of information

from standards; not using a standard graphical representation.

Weaknesses

Practical, tested, easy to understand…

Includes lot criteria. Easy to understand for SME´s, a previous step for IT systems development

Interviews, questionnaires and Record Searching. Graphical representations, oriented to provide final conceptual model solution

“AVANTE” Method

Clear link for developing ICT services Strengths

Data Searching, interviews, Representative process language; for IT services implementation Method Characteristics

TRACEPOINTS Methods Comparative

Thank you very much

Jorge Molina jmolina@ainia.es

17

(24)

(25)

Collection of data for optimizing operations in a fish chain Maria Randrup, DTU Aqua

19

(26)

(27)

Collection of data for optimizing operations in a fish chain

Maria Randrup, Ph.d. student Traceability Methods Workshop Tromsø, Feb. 25, 2009

2 DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark

Agenda

•Ph.d. project

•Objectives of the interviews

•Characteristics, considerations

•Outline of the interview guide

•Data analysis

•Strengths and weaknesses

•Summary

Working title: Validated traceability and quality assurance for improved chain operation

•Two project aims

–To develop a simple, effective quality assurance system for the fishing vessels, collectors and auctions to maintain the quality of fish.

–To map the knowledge and information flow in two fish supply chains to shed light on how the chain operations can be optimized. To find out what information is exchanged, why, and how this information and possibly other types of information can be used to optimize the operation of the individual company and the operation of the chain.

The fish supply chain

Collector Auction

Buyer / Processor 1 Processor 2 Wholesaler Retailer Fishing vessel

How to get data?

Interviews!

Objectives of the interviews (1/3)

•Processes

–what processes take place onboard fishing vessels and at collectors and auctions

–what procedures exist for these processes

•Quality, quality variation, quality assurance

–which criteria are the most important for the companies when buying fish

–how is the variation in the quality of the fish

–what the company does to maintain the quality of the fish

•Information

–what information is exchanged between the steps in the chain, the importance of the information, the use of the information

–other types of information they would like and the use of these types of information

•Traceability

–what is the level of internal and external traceability

21

(28)

•Feedback and trust

–do the companies in the chain give feedback to each other on the quality of the fish

–how is the relationship of trust between the steps in the chain

Characteristics

•Qualitative personal in-depth interview

•To be used on few companies of each type

•Interviewer listens and reacts to the respondent’s answers

•Recorded on tape or MP3-recorder

•Explorative: Acquire knowledge on not only what they do, but also why and how

•Open questions and answers

•Can be supplemented with observations, tour of the production site, photographs, documents

•Can interview more than one person at each company

•Approach the same topic from different angles

Considerations before making the interview guide

•Aim and objectives of the project

•Given setting

–Context of the companies to be interviewed (chain, network)

–Legislative requirements

•Aim and objectives of the interview

•Target group

–Types of companies

–Who in the company; maybe more than one person

•Length of time for the interview

•Why is it interesting for the companies to participate?

Outline of the interview guide

•Introduction to the interview –Purpose of the project –Purpose of the interview

–The respondent is asked to give an introduction to the company

–Drawing of the company’s supplier-customer network

•Main points

–Introductory question –Supplementary questions –Checklist

–If there is time, ask the respondent about…

•Closing

Main points (1/2)

•Fish quality, variation in the quality, quality assurance –Use of respondent’s drawing of the company’s supplier-

customer network

•Information

–Use of index cards

–Information required by EU Regulation 2065/2001 –Most important information, Next most important

information

–Not important information

Main points (2/2)

•Traceability

–Use of diagrams showing two different levels of internal and external traceability

–What is their smallest traceable unit?

–How do they mark and identify their batches? Any mixing of batches?

•Feedback and trust

–Relations with suppliers and customers –Feedback related to the information supplied –Relationship of trust; do they trust the information

supplied?

Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of electronic traceability systems